Live data from Hacker News

Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

publicpolicy.googleblog.com

111–120 of 260 posts

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#111

This comes across to me as nothing more than proof that Google is doubling down on HRC being elected now.

I'm sure they are, and Google's definitely worked closely with Hillary before. Though at last public claim, even Hillary said she was against the TPP.

She said so after she said she supported it. It will be a matter of time until she "evolves" on that matter again. Mark my words, if she's elected.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#112
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To offer an alternative viewpoint. In Canada we have laws that protect personal health data. For instance my doctor cannot save my patient data outside of the country. This is a major pain for SAAS vendors, and I understand google's position. However, as a patient I appreciate knowing that my personal health data is not being sent around the world to other jurisdictions that may not have the same privacy and data pro…

I agree with this as an American as well. Obviously worries about the NSA getting your data are moot if the data was American to begin with, but there are a lot of other concerns, too. I wouldn't feel comfortable with my medical data being stored just anywhere, and I think it's entirely reasonable that the U.S. government should be able to put some restrictions on where it's stored. It may be possible to come up with…

That's the price of freedom: putting individuals in control of their data means they have responsibility to protect it. But is that such a bad trade-off?

Let me put it another way. Someone has to decide where it's safe to send and store private data. Right now, in many cases, it's the government. Why do we think that the government is properly equipped to make that decision for us? Make sure you don't give your medical records to any shady companies. Corporations with international operations and teams of lawyers are probably better equipped to determine where data can be safely secured than some random regulator.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#113
post #101
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because we don't know enough about the actual text to make a substantial argument. All we have are leaked drafts. And by the time the documents are finalized, it will be signed before the ink of the text is dry. Do you know how many consumer advocacy groups are included in the negotiation process for TPP? I gather it's zero. Given the process is specifically intended to keep out consumers, why should we believ…

In the US, the signature means little; it must be ratified after the fact by a 2/3 vote of the Senate to come into effect. So - we have a bit of time to influence our lawmakers. It must be a huge, SOPA-level effort, but it can be done. And it must be done.

Trade agreements are basically never treated as treaties, but are, after negotiated, submitted to Congress for passage as regular laws -- as TPP has been -- so it will take a simple majority in each house of Congress, followed by the signature of the President (or, 2/3 of each house to override a veto if one occurs.)

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it anti-consumer? Convince me. I'm open. But I also want you to include counter-arguments. I want to hear both sides to reach a conclusion. So far most anti-TPP arguments I've read are high on rhetoric and low on substance.

One specific part I don't like is that it would require signatories to enforce a DMCA-like ban on circumvention of DRM mechanisms. The US already has such a ban, but putting it in a treaty makes it worse (harder to repeal), and it would create one in countries which don't already have one. In general the intellectual-property related provisions seem not good to me, almost exclusively in the direction of more restrict…

How exactly does putting a provision in a treaty make it harder to repeal? The same actions that ratify the treaty (for instance, passing an enabling domestic law) can be used to break it.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure they are, and Google's definitely worked closely with Hillary before. Though at last public claim, even Hillary said she was against the TPP.

She said so after she said she supported it. It will be a matter of time until she "evolves" on that matter again. Mark my words, if she's elected.

> She said so after she said she supported it.

She said she supported it while it was being negotiated, and later (as a candidate, when the final text was available) said she opposed the final form, and that it no longer had the specific features she expected the final form would have when she supported it.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#116
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly can't fathom why this question has been downvoted. It's a reasonable question, and one I share. It's a large and complicated document; there's plenty of room for bad ideas, and plenty of room for good. The real question is, "Would we rather have nothing?" Because the existing ecosystem of loosely-affiliated nation-by-nation policies is a sh-tshow.

Yes, we would certanly rather have nothing. Status Quo is infinitely better than forced data transfer of our data to another nation and infinitely better than selling out IP protection to US corporation under ridiculous copyright laws.

If that's true, why does your local legislature (I don't know where you are) enable the treaty in domestic law?

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#117
post #21

This endorsement surprises me just because the TPP is so blatantly anti-consumer, pro-corporation. I'm under no illusion that Google's anything other massive tech-savvy advertising company, but the self-serving corporate side of the company is usually hidden behind the pretty veneer of "tech for the people". Supporting a trade agreement like the TPP (especially given the lack of transparency in the process) lacks the…

Is it anti-consumer? Convince me. I'm open. But I also want you to include counter-arguments. I want to hear both sides to reach a conclusion. So far most anti-TPP arguments I've read are high on rhetoric and low on substance.

"The Trouble with the TPP" series by Michael Geist [0] is an excellent view of some of the issues with it, and demonstrates how the huge nature of the TPP makes it difficult to create short (digestible) but powerful arguments against it. It was very much written from Canada's point of view, so it isn't the most convincing argument for why the US, or any other country, shouldn't ratify the treaty.

[0] http://www.michaelgeist.ca/tech-law-topics/tpp/

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#118
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with this as an American as well. Obviously worries about the NSA getting your data are moot if the data was American to begin with, but there are a lot of other concerns, too. I wouldn't feel comfortable with my medical data being stored just anywhere, and I think it's entirely reasonable that the U.S. government should be able to put some restrictions on where it's stored. It may be possible to come up with…

That's the price of freedom: putting individuals in control of their data means they have responsibility to protect it. But is that such a bad trade-off? Let me put it another way. Someone has to decide where it's safe to send and store private data. Right now, in many cases, it's the government. Why do we think that the government is properly equipped to make that decision for us? Make sure you don't give your medic…

How do you propose that I personally reach agreements with corporations on storage of my medical records? I've visited a hospital once in my life, which involved doing business with dozens of different "businesses", from the hospital to the anesthesiologist, all of whom collected records, and none of whom I was in a condition to negotiate with on an individual basis (nor would they have been interested in negotiating with me regarding their data-protection policies anyway). And I don't have any faith in corporations determining where data can be safely stored; I think they will primarily go with where it can be most profitably stored, which is not necessarily the same question. I would feel much more comfortable if the hospital, anesthesiologist, and everyone else were required to store my data in accordance with a regulator's oversight. And preferably in the USA or a friendly western country. The companies can of course exercise additional caution if they feel it warranted, but I'd like the government to legislate some minimums.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#119
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you assume the next president won't do a backflip and support it once they're in? Politicians break promises, and break opinions a whole lot more.

I could see Clinton doing that backflip but if it's Trump he seems to be genuinely anti-free trade.

lol you actually believe a Republican would be against free trade?

There's a reason he ran as a Republican in the first place.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it anti-consumer? Convince me. I'm open. But I also want you to include counter-arguments. I want to hear both sides to reach a conclusion. So far most anti-TPP arguments I've read are high on rhetoric and low on substance.

One specific part I don't like is that it would require signatories to enforce a DMCA-like ban on circumvention of DRM mechanisms. The US already has such a ban, but putting it in a treaty makes it worse (harder to repeal), and it would create one in countries which don't already have one. In general the intellectual-property related provisions seem not good to me, almost exclusively in the direction of more restrict…

> The US already has such a ban, but putting it in a treaty makes it worse (harder to repeal)

The TPP would not, in US law terms, be a treaty, but a regular federal statute.

Post reply on HN